lundi 24 février 2014

La portée du privilège générique relativement à la preuve matérielle

United States of America v. Berke, 2013 BCSC 619 (CanLII)


[26]        I am not satisfied that Mr. Berke has met the onus on him of showing that any of these documents are subject to solicitor-client privilege. The mere fact that they may have been sent to or received from a lawyer does not establish that they are privileged. As Gray J. put it in Keefer Laundry Ltd. v. Pellerin Milnor Corp., 2006 BCSC 1180 (CanLII), 2006 BCSC 1180 at para. 61:
A lawyer is not a safety-deposit box. Merely sending documents that were created outside the solicitor-client relationship and not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice to a lawyer will not make those documents privileged. Nor will privilege extend to physical objects or “neutral” facts that exist independently of clients’ communications. (R. v. Murray 2000 CanLII 22378 (ON SC), (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 544, 186 D.L.R. (4th) 125.)

Aucun commentaire:

Publier un commentaire

Le processus que doit suivre un juge lors de la détermination de la peine face à un accusé non citoyen canadien

R. c. Kabasele, 2023 ONCA 252 Lien vers la décision [ 31 ]        En raison des arts. 36 et 64 de la  Loi sur l’immigration et la protection...